Comments on: Copyright and attribution

By: Henry

Henry — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 21:52:38 +0000

Maynard, I think you’re wrong on the facts of it. Discussions of plagiarism haven’t seen a major shift in the last few years, and the major viable alternative (creativecommons) to the content industry is itself based on the principle of no plagiarism, because that’s what the punters want. Academics don’t obsess about plagiarism because of commercial worries over copyright – they obsess about plagiarism because their visible influence in the literature is key to their careers. The ‘climate’ has nothing to do with it. You don’t seem to have any evidence whatsoever of a causal connection, and there’s another explanation out there that explains perfectly well why people are worried about plagiarism w.o. any reference to the copyright mafia. Nor are possible reforms to address academic plagiarism going to have any substantial consequences for the copyright industry, so it’s not really in their interests to push it. It’s chalk and cheese.

By: Maynard Handley

Maynard Handley — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:07:59 +0000

For the record I’d just like to chime in that the various commenters above pretty much express my point for me. I was not claiming that copyright violation and plagiarism are the same thing, but that we have a climate that obsesses about plagiarism because of commercial worries ovber copyright. Henry says “but does anyone have any evidence – even the slightest bit of real material evidence – that the copyright industry is actually pushing the anti-plagiarism agenda?” I don’t think you have to look as far as that, and I think jackmormon’s post gives an idea of what I am saying. Having said that, I do expect that slowly you will see (in the usual PR/astroturf/silent whispering campaigns) that “concerns” about plagiarism will be bankrolled and kept in the public eye by the usual commercial suspects, in much the same way that, god forbid, the tobacco industry does not literally pay for movie producers to have their movies show smoking as cool, but somehow magically that just happens.

By: des von bladet

des von bladet — Thu, 16 Dec 2004 10:50:08 +0000

There's also the Berne convention's take on this:

Independently of the author's economic rights, and even after the transfer of the said rights, the author shall have the right to claim authorship of the work and to object to any distortion, mutilation or other modification of, or other derogatory action in relation to, the said work, which would be prejudicial to his honor or reputation.

This can actually have anti-business implications: I have heard of cases where an author has used these rights to block translations they didn't like, produced by persons who had paid good money for the right to do so. Of course, the fact there's no evidence of the Conflation Conspiracy just shows how good those guys are.

By: Jackmormon

Jackmormon — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 23:16:25 +0000

Henry, I wouldn’t put it as the copyright industry is actually pushing the anti-plagiarism agenda. Instead, I would put it as the growing acceptability of violating copyright (or simply getting articles, movies, or music for free) as worsening the plagiarism problem. It would seem logical to me that the increase the copyright-violation and all the press around it would have made plagiarism more visible and seem more like a structural problem. Academic discussions of intellectual property have been pretty sexy for more than five years now—you should see how excited my literary scholar friends have become about piracy of all sorts—and it kinda makes sense that this interest would filter down into a concern over plagiarism. I’m going with correlation, not causation.

By: Henry

Henry — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 22:59:51 +0000

I’ve been reading a lot of innuendo and fact-free speculation – but does anyone have any evidence – even the slightest bit of real material evidence – that the copyright industry is actually pushing the anti-plagiarism agenda?

By: Ben Hyde

Ben Hyde — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 21:55:11 +0000

A system that is extremely good at detecting plagiarism is equivalent to a system that’s extremely good at detecting copyright violations. Plagiarism is perceived as a matter of ethics. Copyright is perceived as a matter of commerce. It is the job of PR to frame commercial goals in ethical garb.

By: eudoxis

eudoxis — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:56:09 +0000

“He’s wrong, but in an interesting way – his hypothesis reflects a common confusion between copyright and attribution.” I read Maynard as saying that the recent exposure of attribution problems such as the trivial plagiarism described in the Chronicles article are intentionally exposed in an effort to distort a common view of copyright. Regardless, a lesson on copyright and attribution is timely. I disagree with Maynard because I think the plagiarism problem as described is just the tip of the iceberg. Stealing of ideas and data are pervasive and much worse than described. I also disagree with Henry who forgets that the humanities with their gentlemen’s agreements are only a small part of the larger university which includes the sciences, where ideas and their attribution do indeed present a formal economy.

By: BenA

BenA — Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:17:15 +0000

Couple thoughts about this… 1) Although I obviously can’t speak for him, I don’t think Maynard Handley was saying that plagiarism is the same issue as intellectual property, but rather that concerns about plagiarism are fanned by folks concerned about intellectual property. That may or may not be true, but the fact that they are not the same issue doesn’t entirely address the claim. 2) Concerns about plagiarism go beyond attribution. For example, one common type of plagiarism is inadequate paraphrase. And inadequate paraphrases, almost by definition, include a reference to the work being inadequately paraphrased (or else the crime would be something worse).